Craig Wright: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
wired article |
April 1st |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
These claims, despite being echoed by media worldwide, are very quickly collecting evidence to the contrary. On December 12th Wired<ref>[http://www.wired.com/2015/12/new-clues-suggest-satoshi-suspect-craig-wright-may-be-a-hoaxer Craig Wright is not Nakamoto Wired]</ref> published a new article suggesting that the weight of the evidence is against Wright being Satoshi. | These claims, despite being echoed by media worldwide, are very quickly collecting evidence to the contrary. On December 12th Wired<ref>[http://www.wired.com/2015/12/new-clues-suggest-satoshi-suspect-craig-wright-may-be-a-hoaxer Craig Wright is not Nakamoto Wired]</ref> published a new article suggesting that the weight of the evidence is against Wright being Satoshi. | ||
On April 1st 2016 the FT published a story titled "Craig Wright’s upcoming big reveal"<ref>[http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/03/31/2158024/craig-wrights-upcoming-big-reveal/ FT Big Reveal April 1st]</ref> hinting at his soon-to-come outing as Satoshi. Some sources ignored the date, setting off the rumour mill again<ref>[http://www.wired.com/2016/04/prove-youre-bitcoin-creator-satoshi-nakamoto/ Wired: How to Prove you are Satoshi]</ref>. | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
Revision as of 16:09, 11 April 2016
Craig Wright is an Australian Bitcoin enthusiast. On December 9 2015 articles in Wired[1] and Gizmodo[2] pointed to him as a possible candidate for the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto.
These claims, despite being echoed by media worldwide, are very quickly collecting evidence to the contrary. On December 12th Wired[3] published a new article suggesting that the weight of the evidence is against Wright being Satoshi.
On April 1st 2016 the FT published a story titled "Craig Wright’s upcoming big reveal"[4] hinting at his soon-to-come outing as Satoshi. Some sources ignored the date, setting off the rumour mill again[5].